Attachment_22_-_FSA's_Responses_to_Questions.pdf

Attachment 22 -

Responses to Offeror Questions

Number Question Answer

Because only milestone 1 has a defined timeline expectation, is there an end date that should be assumed for the last milestone or a general

“implemented by date” for the overall solution?

See Amendment 02.

In section L-2.4.1.3, are you requesting that we propose due dates for the milestones listed section C.2.5 and provide all assumptions we are making around key decisions that are required to successfully achieve those milestone due dates?

See Amendment 02. FSA expects offerors to identify all assumptions around key decisions necessary to achieve target milestone dates.

The government provides a significant amount of detail related to the requirements related to the Eligibility Processing requirements and

Student Financing Servicing requirements, but does not provide that same level of detail for the Origination and Disbursement Processing requirements. Will the government make available the same level of detail for the Origination and Disbursement Processing requirements as it does for the other requirements categories?

See Amendment 02.

We understand that the Department is seeking to pursue an efficient and effective financial services technology approach and in earlier solicitation initiatives separated technology from the labor components into different bids. It appears that the Department is requesting in this solicitation for the Optimal Process Solution as well as the other two solicitations

(Enhanced Processing Solution) and Business Process Operations) overlapping scope; specifically labor for staffing the business process operations. Since the Department already has 2 bids which are requesting business process operation pricing and to keep the focus on efficient and effective financial services technology approaches, would the

Department consider dropping the requirement to price the business process operations as part of the initial bid submission.

BPO support is not in the scope of OPS. See

Amendment 02.

What services of EITA are presently in the cloud (referenced by “as well as

Platform-as-a-Service services support in the cloud”), and are they providing functionality in addition to ITA and/or ESB or they expected to be used instead of functionality of ITA and/or ESB?

Offerors are not constrained by current EITA standards. However, the solution shall be adaptable to incorporate future FSA standards.

On the bottom of Page 4, the government references the Enterprise IT

Architecture (EITA). Can the government provide the document which describes the EITA standards?

Offerors are not constrained by current EITA standards. However, the solution shall be adaptable to incorporate future FSA standards.

The requirements state that the vendor shall receive and implement

FAFSA changes and error fixes submitted through multiple channels. Can

FSA define the typical changes and error fixes to be included in a single year.

Is this requirement referring to changes and errors related to FAFSA applications (data), or rather changes and errors related to the FAFSA business rules and/or eligibility determination system? If the latter, please provide an estimate of the frequency and magnitude of such changes and errors in a given year.

EFC calculations are performed according to the business rules associated with each award year

(i.e., current year calculations are performed using the current year requirements/business rules and prior years must be calculated using the associated requirements/business for that award year). The solution shall calculate prior year EFC using prior year rules.

Is the dissemination of eligibility determination results the responsibility of the core system? Or rather is that the responsibility of various user interfaces (e.g., the digital engagement layer)?

Does the solution include the ability to authorize and authenticate authorized recipients of this data, or is that the responsibility of other systems?

See Amendment 02 for updated requirements related to eligibility processing.

Since the solicitation specifies that that COD and Servicing milestones are

TBD, it would be difficult to commit to a firm fixed price. Can the

Department consider either dropping the requirement for pricing these two components at this time or accept T&M instead of FFP pricing?

No. See Amendment 02 for updated milestones.

FSA referenced paragraph 1.2.6, but that paragraph is not in the RFP. Can

FSA please clarify your reference to “…the substance of this clause, its terms, and requirements including this paragraph…”?

See Amendment 02.

Please confirm that Attachment 17, completed for the Prime Contractor and all proposed entities performing 10% or more of the work, should be included in Volume 5, Small Business Subcontracting Plan and Other

Solicitation Requirements.

Attachment 17 shall be included in Volume 2.

Tier 1 and Tier 2 support is called out on page 7 of the Optimal Processing

Solution solicitation. What is the difference and who will be providing the

Tier 1 support?

Other vendors will provide Tier 1 support. Tier 2 is an escalation of calls from Tier 1, and the OPS vendor shall provide a Tier 2 technical support help desk to address technical issues with the solution or data generated by it.

The pricing template (Attachment 18 - Pricing Template.xlsx) shared by

FSA is asking for a price of 9 years (5 year based period and 4 optional years). This is not in-line with the contract duration of 15 years shared in the RFP by FSA. Can FSA please clarify if the pricing template is in the correct format?

A later amendment will include an updated pricing template.

Is FSA’s master data management implementation part of current scope

OR does the offeror only have to comply with new standards?

Solution shall implement the enterprise logical and physical data standards supporting FSA’s master data management initiative.

For Interface, "Financial Reporting & Reconciliation" in 06000 series, out of

88 requirements, the doc/sample files are available only for 35 requirements. 6008, 6009, 6013 are few among the missed documents.

We request FSA to share remaining documents .

Attachments are only provided for requirements that specifically reference an attachment.

For Interface, "FMS Interface" in 07000 series, out of 117 requirements, the doc/sample files are available only for 37 requirements. 7009, 7016, 7020 are few among the missed documents.

We request FSA to share remaining documents .

Attachments are only provided for requirements that specifically reference an attachment.

For Interface, "Financial Activity &Transactions" in 08000 series, out of 110 requirements, the doc/sample files are available only for 18 requirements.

8001, 8040 are few among the missed documents. We request FSA to share remaining documents .

Attachments are only provided for requirements that specifically reference an attachment.

For Interface, "Treasury" in 09000 series , out of 25 requirements, the doc/sample files are available for only 12 requirements. We request FSA to share remaining documents .

Attachments are only provided for requirements that specifically reference an attachment.

For Interface, "Internal Controls and Audits" in 10000 series, out of 13 requirements, the doc/sample files are available only for 4 requirements.

We request FSA to share remaining documents .

Attachments are only provided for requirements that specifically reference an attachment.

Please share the list of 'Must-have" requirements or priority of requirements. This will be helpful for planning purpose.

A comprehensive set of jointly agreed-upon requirements will be defined post award.

Please confirm that solution O&M and BPO Periods of Performance begin upon delivery of Milestone 1.

Solution O&M begins upon the delivery of each milestone; BPO is not within the scope of OPS. See

Amendment 02.

Does FSA anticipate borrowers migrating twice, once to Enhanced

Processing Solution and once to Optimal Processing Solution? If so, will

FSA provide a prioritization migration schedule based on customer status to avoid customer interruption?

The EPS vendor shall be responsible for migrating existing customer accounts, not the OPS vendor.

FSA may migrate accounts from EPS to OPS at a later date, should FSA so determine. Migration schedules will be determined to minimize customer interruption.

Does FSA expect "default support" to include the migration and servicing of the default inventory from the Enhanced Processing Solution or should the Offeror only plan to support loans that default from a designated point in time following award?

The EPS vendor shall be responsible for migrating existing customer accounts, including defaulted accounts, not the OPS vendor. FSA may migrate accounts from the EPS to OPS at a later date, should FSA so determine.

Does the Government anticipate any connectivity between the NextGen

Enhanced Processing and NextGen Optimal Processing solutions?

FSA may migrate accounts from the EPS to OPS at a later date, should FSA so determine.

Will the Government please confirm that the NextGen Optimal Processing

Solution will only support new customers and loans?

Please confirm that the number of customer accounts to be converted into the NextGen Optimal Processing Solution will be zero?

Initially, the Servicing Support Processing operating element of the Optimal Processing

Solution will only support new customers and loans based on currently available programs and any future programs that may be implemented.

Existing loans may be migrated from EPS to the

Servicing Support Processing operating element of

OPS at a later date, should FSA so determine. Note that the Eligibility and O&D operating elements will be only for new application and disbursement cycles, but will incorporate a history of previous applications and loans.

Please provide instructions as to where in the pricing template offerors should price the "Additional functions/optional tasks" as identified in section C.2.3 of the RFP.

Offerors are required to price optional tasks. A later amendment will include an updated pricing template.

Instructions ask the Offeror to address Milestones 2, 3 and 4. Please indicate where Offeror is supposed to provide approach and schedule for meeting Milestone 1.

See Amendment 02 for updated milestones.

Please confirm that Factor 1 and Factor 2 will be weighted equally. If not, please advised the how Factor 1 and 2 will be weighted.

Per Amendment 02, FSA will be conducting a best value source selection evaluation based on a complete assessment of the Offerors’ proposals.

Proposals will be evaluated on the factors listed below. The non-price factors, Technical Approach and Past Performance are of equal importance and both are more important than Price.

Please confirm there are no small business goals or set asides There are no small business set asides, but there are small business goals.

The financial standards included in the attachment titled "03-Finance

Technical Requirements" appear to be all related to the Student Financing servicing requirements. Can the Department make available financial standards for the Origination and Disbursement Processing requirements as well?

Solution shall include robust measures for ensuring the compliance and accuracy of financial transactions and reporting. Technical requirements for current state financial standards are included in the attached “03 –Finance

Technical Requirements”. FSA anticipates the Full

Life Cycle solution to be able to more efficiently and/or effectively meet requirements as compared to current processes.

Please confirm that the Phase-In Plan should be included as an Appendix in the Technical Proposal and is NOT included in the page count.

See Amendment 02 for the latest specifications on page count.

Does the Department have a preferred development methodology for the modernization activities described in this RFP? Long-term FFP contracts and waterfall-based methodologies are often not the best approach for large-scale development programs with evolving requirements. Would the

Department be open to use of Agile software development techniques, where the work is priced on a fixed capacity basis?

FSA does not have a preferred methodology and would be open to any methodology that meets the solicitation's requirements.

What is the period of performance of Solution Operations and

Maintenance? Is the contactor expected to perform this work on the existing legacy systems starting on Day 1 of the contract, or only on modernized systems after they are deployed? If the former, please provide detailed technical specifications and operational data (e.g., defect rates, number of support tickets, releases per year) on all systems to be operated and maintained, so that bidders can provide FFP estimates.

See Amendment 02.

Are there any enterprise licensing agreements (ELA) that vendors can leverage for the middleware or other software products? If so, can the

Department provide a list of the software products and number of seats and/or compute resources for which it has paid licenses.

The Offeror is not constrained by current enterprise licensing agreements. However, the solution shall be adaptable to incorporate future

FSA standards.

Describe and define the interface to third party software applications via

Electronic Data Exchange? Which software applications are in scope?

How many different third party applications must be integrated with the eligibility solution in the first 24 months?

Is the solution required to provide the user interface for web and mobile, or will this be provided through another contract?

Is the solution required to provide a mechanism to enter applications via paper forms, or will this be provided through another contract? Is the paper entry required to be automated (machine readable) or is it manually entered? Or both?

Please provide a detailed description of the Electronic Data Exchange specifications for receiving application data from third-party software applications.

Offerors shall propose "Back-end Application

Management" capabilities in line with the requirements detailed in the amended solicitation.

We assume the solution is providing the services and data, but not the actual user interface(s) through which applicants track status. Please confirm.

What other parties are able to track applicant status?

Is there a reference architecture for the eligibility determination solution?

The DCC vendor will provide the user interface.

FSA anticipates that both the DCC vendor and OPS vendor will develop APIs. See Amendment 02.

In order to allow bidders to provide a firm fixed price bid, please provide a list and specifications of services that must be exposed through FSA-designated solutions.

Solution shall be developed and implemented to ensure easy integration with existing FSA or third-party solutions and NextGen solutions, as necessary to execute required functions. See

Amendment 02 for updated requirements on integration.

Please define the terms "edits", "matching", and "verification selection".

Please provide the complete set of business rules for calculation of

Expected Family Contribution (EFC), if not already answered in a previous question on requirements.

See Amendment 02 for updated requirements related to eligibility processing.

The requirement states that the solution shall process inputs from, but not limited to FAFSA, School Partners, and other agencies. Please define what is meant by the words "Match Results".

Please provide specifications of the interface through which the solution receives inputs from the external sources listed in the requirement.

See Amendment 02 for updated requirements related to eligibility processing.

Can FSA define the quantities to reprocess past eligibility determinations?

Is the solution required to calculate EFC for all prior years, using prior year data and business rules? Or is this requirement only within a single year?

Reprocesses can occur in any award year. Once the changes or corrections have been made to the system for the specified year, records that would be impacted by these changes shall be reprocessed through all edits and business rules to determine if there is any changes to the student's eligibility. The changes or corrections could occur for just one year or across multiple years, but each year shall be reprocessed based on the edits/business rules associated for the specific year.

Please define the contents of a "feed file" and relevant requirements around feed file transmission to all relevant parties.

See Amendment 02 for updated requirements related to eligibility processing.

Does the reference to administration of FSA programs refer to the vendors performing BPO and contact center labor support? Please confirm. Please detail the requirements around support for the administration of FSA programs.

No. See attachment 04 - Additional Current State

Technical Constraints for a list of representative requirements in the current state.

Please specify the FSA's requirements around provision of statistical analysis capability. For example, what statistics are required, what reports, how often, etc.?

Offerors shall propose "Statistical Analysis

Support" capabilities to meet the requirements detailed in the amended solicitation.

The requirements include the ability to conduct analyses to drive continuous and consistent improvement of eligibility rules. Please define the types of analysis that is performed to improve eligibility rules.

Offerors shall propose which analyses they intend to use to drive continuous and consistent improvement of eligibility rules.

The solicitation specifies a requirements and verification analysis and a post mortem analysis of the business rules. Please provide additional definition of what the Department is seeking to measure as it relates to the effectiveness of business rules.

Offerors shall propose "Statistical Analysis

Support" capabilities to meet the requirements detailed in the amended solicitation.

Please specify the number, quantity, and content of reports required for year end reporting.

There are currently around 100 reports provided during year end reporting. The government is seeking to gain efficiencies and improvements to its current processes. A comprehensive set of jointly agreed-upon requirements will be provided post award.

What other systems will the eligibility determination system be required to integrate with?

Solution shall be designed flexibly to accommodate rapid changes and effective integration with other FSA solutions.

Approximately what volume (percentage and number) of business rules changes on a yearly basis? Are these rules, and associated changes, documented?

Approximately between 5 to 10% of the business rules are impacted by yearly updates (i.e. date incremented, rate changes, offset tables).

The amount of other changes are all dependent on changes that can come from a variety of sources.

The solicitation includes a requirement to maintain and provide access to prior years FAFSA data. Does this requirement intend to mean that the solution needs to store EFC calculations that it creates? Or does it mean that it should be able to display EFC calculations for years prior to the new applications being developed. Is this requirement for the solution or for the contractor?

Is the solution required to merely provide access to prior years of FAFSA data, or to be able to calculate EFC for all prior years, using prior year data and prior business rules?

Who are "designated users" and how many?

Which federal records management regulations govern this requirement?

After an award year closes, FAFSA data becomes a historical record that shall be maintained, available, and replicable for 15 years. A replicated application would need to include all student, parent, school, and computer matching data, in addition to student and/or parent signatures and any other processing data that was used to make a determination of student eligibility for aid. The new solution needs to include functionality to permit access to prior year FAFSA data. The solution shall also include functionality to dispose of electronic records after the 15-year retention period using NIST disposal standards for sensitive

PII. Designated users of the solution include, but are not limited to: FSA staff, the Office of Inspector

General, and law enforcement agencies. The

Privacy Act of 1974 & Family Education Rights and

Privacy Act (FERPA) governs this requirement.

The requirement to "effectively work with other providers" is unclear.

Please elaborate.

This requirement refers to integration and collaboration with other providers that are instrumental in the lifecycle of student financing and in the accomplishment FSA NextGen Goals.

What are the uptime and performance requirements?

What is considered "a timely manner"?

Offerors shall propose "Administration" capabilities to meet the requirements detailed in the amended solicitation.

Please specify the "other back-office, exception, and manual activities" that are covered under this requirement, so that vendors may accurately estimate this work.

Offerors shall propose "Additional Tasks" capabilities to meet the requirements detailed in the amended solicitation.

It is our understanding that the Department recently modernized COD, as a result of awarding the TIVOD bid in early 2015, with the goal of deploying a modernized solution in March 2017. Is the Department open to an approach where we leverage the existing system? If so, can the

Department provide details on the technical design and specifications of the modernized COD system?

Solution shall be built with a modern architecture

(e.g., but not limited to: modular code base, cloud operability, two-speed development, rules engine, modern language) to deliver more efficient and effective functionalities and cutting-edge industry practices and products.

For Milestone C.2.5.1 Milestone 1, it appears that the only requirements for the student Financing Eligibility Processing milestone is found on pages

7 through 10. Can the Department confirm that it has not included any additional detail in the appendices for Milestone 1?

See Amendment 02 for updated milestones.

We assume that this clause (FSA 37-2) applies after a solution is released into production. Please confirm. Please confirm that this solicitation does not require taking over the legacy systems? If the Department intent is to take over legacy systems, then please specify the transition in time period for each legacy system.

The solution does not require taking over legacy systems, but the solution shall ensure existing functionalities are provided.

For the fixed price technology components, can the Department indicate how it will structure task orders under this IDIQ (e.g., Task Order for the eligibility determination build, Task order for eligibility determination

O&M, Task Order for operations and determination build, etc.)?

See Amendment 02 for updated information on contract structure.

For the work breakdown structure, would the Department consider requiring the vendor to provide a WBS to address only milestone 1 since milestones related to origination and disbursement, student financial servicing, and additional functions are TBD.

No, see Amendment 02 for updated milestones.

Under section (d.), the RFP requires the completion of the Past Work

Experience Reference Questionnaire. Is this requirement applicable only to the Prime Contractor responding to this solicitation?

No, prime contractors and teaming partners shall complete the Past Work Experience Reference

Questionnaire.

Can vendors propose interim milestones with an associated payment schedule?

Offerors may propose additional or interim milestones that are of value to FSA with an associated payment schedule.

What does FSA specifically mean by “implement the enterprise logical and physical data standards”? For example, does this mean that data extracts from the OPS system of records will map to standard semantics defined by the new MDM from FSA? Or is FSA expecting the semantics and unique data fields/elements from the MDM will be used in the common operational database of the system of record for OPS?

FSA is expecting the semantics and unique data fields/elements from the MDM to be used in the common operational database.

Please confirm that, in the following context, "CSR" is a BPO sourced

"Customer Service Representative": "Solution shall allow FSA, CSRs, schools…"

FSA confirms.

Will FSA provide documentation describing the functionality of

".EDExpress"? If not, what should Offerors assume in order to demonstrate their solution's ability to include the functions provided by this tool?

Offerors shall use provided information to propose a solution that performs the required functionality currently provided by .EDExpress and .EDESuite.

What level of schedule detail is desired given that only milestone 1 has a defined timeline expectation (within 24 months of award)?

See Amendment 02.

Does FSA envision that the Optimal Processing Solution will be an enhancement to the Enhanced Processing Solution with additional functionality and modules or a completely different system?

Solution shall be built with a modern architecture

(e.g., but not limited to: modular code base, cloud operability, two-speed development, rules engine, modern language) to deliver more efficient and effective functionalities and cutting-edge industry practices and products. This does not preclude either enhancing EPS or proposing an entirely new system.

Can the "19 - Performance Measurement Template" include performance measures that are not limited to Contact Center Support and Back Office

Processing, i.e. Servicing Platform?

See Amendment 02 for an updated Attachment

"19 - Performance Measurement Template."

Can FSA expand on the 53000 series requirements for "Application

Eligibility Determination System (AEDS)"? There are numerous requirements associated with this system that are not referenced in the

Optimal Processing Solution solicitation.

For a broader informational view of FSA’s current servicing environment, Offerors are encouraged to review Attachment “04 – Additional Current State

Technical Constraints,” which provides a representative, though not comprehensive set of technical constraints. A comprehensive set of jointly agreed-upon requirements will be defined post award.

For the Optimal Processing Solution milestones, what is the milestone to onboard separate Business Process Operations vendors to the new

Optimal Processing Solution?

The schedule for the OPS vendor to support the onboarding of BPO providers will be determined at a later date.

Should Optimal Processing Solution vendors also provide a staffing plan

(similar to the Business Process Operations solicitation)?

See Amendment 02, which includes the addition of a staffing plan.

Will all complaints be entered into the existing FSA complaint portal and distributed to each separate Business Process Operations for customers assigned or will the Optimal Processing Solution and/or Optimal

Processing Solution Business Process Operations be responsible for this work?

BPO support is not in the scope of OPS. See

Amendment 02. FSA anticipates both the OPS provider and the separate BPO providers will be required to address complaints related to their solutions.

For the training plan submission, should 2 separate plans be provided, one for Optimal Processing Solution and one for Optimal Processing Solution

Business Process Operations?

No, Business Process Operations is not in the scope of OPS. See Amendment 02.

Several requirements listed in the Additional Current State Technical

Constraints are not requirements in the current environment. Will FSA update this document to differentiate between new and existing requirements?

See Amendment 02, which includes an update for

"Attachment 04 - Additional Current State

Technical Constraints"

For the word document embedded in attachment 04 Additional Current

State Technical Constraints, Debt Management and Collection System

Additional Information, the volume for the portfolio and processing work listed appears to be prior to 2014, will FSA provide updated DMCS projected and actual volume to consider for Optimal Processing Solution and Business Process Operations work?

As of January 2019, there are approximately

11,600,000 active borrowers in default.

Will physical return mail and skip mail be returned to the Optimal

Processing Solution or to another entity?

Another solution shall provide imaging, printing, and mailing for FSA.

Attachments are referenced in the document titled "04 - Additional

Current State Technical Constraints" that have not been provided. Will these attachments be provided?

See Amendment 02, which includes an update for

"Attachment 04 - Additional Current State

Technical Constraints"

Can FSA provide information in the "18 - Pricing Template" as to the expected volume that would require manual processing versus automated processing?

A later amendment will include an updated pricing template.

Page 14 of the Optimal Processing Solution provides that the Optimal

Processing Solution will work with the separately provided Business

Process Operations for various delinquent and defaulted customer accounts. Will the Optimal Processing Solution utilize the separate

Business Process Operations vendors to assign the separate accounts?

The OPS vendor is not responsible for assigning or allocating accounts to separate BPO providers. The

DCC vendor will allocate accounts based on requirements from FSA.

In identifying Litigation accounts, does FSA have predetermined criteria on which accounts should be referred, and which not, for Litigation? More specifically are there certain thresholds, related to a balance, recency of payment, credit score, etc., and/or formulas combining like factors? If not, is Optimal Processing Solution responsible for, or allowed to, establish its own criterion?

A comprehensive set of jointly agreed-upon requirements will be defined post award, including for applicable litigation requirements.

Can FSA expand on the 54000 series requirements for "EdExpress

(EDSuite)"? There are numerous requirements associated with this system and it appears to be a system utilized by schools.

For a broader informational view of FSA’s current servicing environment, Offerors are encouraged to review Attachment “04 – Additional Current State

Technical Constraints,” which provides a representative, though not comprehensive set of technical constraints. A comprehensive set of jointly agreed-upon requirements will be defined post award.

We request FSA to clarify on the total subcontracting percentage. Is it 47%

(Addition of Small Businesses 31%, Women Owned Small Businesses 5%, Small Disadvantaged Businesses 5%, Service Disabled Veteran Owned

Small Businesses 3%, Historically

Underutilized Business Zones (HUB Zones) 3%) or 31% (inclusive of Small

Businesses 31%, Women Owned Small Businesses 5%, Small

Disadvantaged Businesses: 5%, Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small

Businesses 3%, Historically Underutilized Business Zones (HUB Zones) 3%)?

Subcontracting goals are for a minimum total of

32%, which is inclusive of all small businesses, regardless of subcategory. Offerors are strongly encouraged to exceed the cited goals.

We request FSA to share estimated timelines for procurement milestones

(i.e., Evaluation of Proposals, Proponent Selection Date, Orals/Solution

Demo Date, Contract Start Date, etc.)

See Amendment 02.

We request FSA to clarify if the fixed price quoted by the offeror should be inclusive of software, hardware, infrastructure, and hosting costs.

The Offeror's price shall be inclusive of software, hardware, infrastructure, and hosting costs as needed to provide the requested solution.

Is FSA willing to negotiate the terms and conditions of the contract? If yes, please suggest where the offeror should list exceptions to terms and condition in the response.

Yes, Offerors shall list exceptions in Volume 5.

Will FSA accept press releases (detailing the implementation performed by the offeror) as evidence of the offeror's past work experience?

No.

Will FSA accept go-live emails from the customer as evidence of the offeror's past work experience?

No.

In case there are no performance failures and/or proceedings on the offeror, please explain how the offeror should respond to this requirement?

Offeror shall state that there are no performance failures or proceedings in its response.

Is FSA expecting a response for requirements listed in C.2.1, C.2.2, C.2.3, C.2.5, C.3.2 of '19R0007_RFP_011519.pdf' and the pain points listed in attachment - '07 - Top Customer Pain Points.docx', as all these requirements directly map to FSA’s requirement of responding to goals and objectives, requirements target milestones, and customer pain points? If yes, then will the response count in the page limit defined for

Performance Work Statement (40 pages)?

The answer is yes to both questions.

The RFP/Contractor does not contain a limitation of liability provision and is silent regarding any liability cap. Would FSA consider the insertion of a limitation of liability provision and/or cumulative liability cap within the final negotiated contract?

No.

Can the offeror use past performance references from subcontractor to fulfill past performance requirements?

Yes.

What is the expected format for all the reports? Solution shall support report formats as required by FSA and other NextGen providers.

Is enterprise record management part of current scope or would it be a separate exercise?

Yes, data (including digital assets) retention requirements are part of current scope.

What is the expectation from the offeror on Notification and Alerts? Is FSA expecting that these systems should be replaced? Customer communications will be triggered by respective processing solutions, including OPS, and distributed via DCC.

If the offeror selects 'with Implementation' in 'Applicable Pricing

Methodology' column, then it is being assumed that data in the second column is not required, as Implementation cost is Flat Price. Please validate our assumption.

A later amendment will include an updated pricing template.

As part of the milestones section, there is an expectation given that in

Milestone 2, the new Origination System would be implemented. As part of the 04 - Additional Current State Technical Constraints, the series 4000 talks about interface with COD system and there are no detailed requirements for the new Origination System. Thus clarity is needed on whether the CODS will be continued as a managed service or will the new

Origination System be proposed.

For a broader informational view of FSA’s current servicing environment, Offerors are encouraged to review Attachment “04 – Additional Current State

Technical Constraints,” which provides a representative, though not comprehensive set of technical constraints. A comprehensive set of jointly agreed-upon requirements will be defined post award.

We assume that the DMCS system will not be replaced and only the managed service of DMCS is in scope. Please validate our assumption.

EPS and OPS shall provide solutions that capture existing DMCS functionality.

We assume that the AEDS system will not be replaced and only the managed service of AEDS is in scope. Please validate our assumption.

The OPS vendor shall provide a solution that captures existing AEDS functionality.

We assume that the EdExpress system will not be replaced and only the managed service of EdExpress is in scope. Please validate our assumption.

The OPS vendor shall provide a solution that captures existing EDExpress functionality.

Will the existing ITA (Integrated Technical Architecture) and ESB

(Enterprise Service Bus) work as EITA (Enterprise IT Architecture) for all components or will we have to design a new ESB (New Enterprise Service

Bus) for Optimal Processing Solution?

The Offeror is not constrained by current EITA

Regarding CRM system, our understanding is all SRs (Service Requests) will be catered through enterprise CRM solution (Earlier covered as part of

Component D scope). Optimal Processing Solution will only have to integrate with Enterprise CRM. Please confirm our understanding.

The Optimal Processing Solution will need to have the flexibility necessary to seamlessly integrate with existing and future solutions provided by FSA or other vendors, across the entire lifecycle of student financing. Those solutions include

NextGen solutions such as the FSA-branded digital platform, contact center technical backbone and support, Customer Relationship Management

(CRM), business process operations, identity and access management, and analytics platform.

Milestones are mentioned in a specific order in the RFP. Can this order be re-planned/re-arranged?

See Amendment 02.

Please explain what additional functions are planned for this milestone.

Are these requirements/Change Requests coming up during later discussions/project execution phase?

See Amendment 02 for updated milestones.

Should we consider Forgiveness/Cancellation/Discharge as an expense or as a separate GL?

See Attachment 03 - Finance Technical

Requirements, requirement 7006 and the associated attachments.

Is there an expectation that each payment will be tracked against specific disbursement? In case there are multiple disbursements for a loan account, then what is the logic expected?

Solution shall perform financial functions. See

Amendment 02.

Will there be multiple loan accounts against a single award ID? Yes, a borrower has one ID, but can have multiple loans.

We request FSA to share the DEAL reconciliation samples files for our better understanding (samples files for deal reconciliation (6030 series) are missing).

See Attachment 03 - Finance Technical

Requirements and associated attachments.

Cybersecurity, Hosting and Middleware section states: 'Please note the

FedRAMP-approved cloud shall require a Department/Agency-level

Authorization to Operate (ATO), followed by the FSA-issued ATO for the system, which shall be FISMA and/or FedRAMP-approved at either a FIPS-

199 High level or Moderate level, depending on the proposed architecture and corresponding FIPS-199 category of the system.'

Can FSA confirm whether the Optimal Processing Solution will be categorized as Moderate or High according to FIPS-199.

The determination of "Moderate" or "High" will be determined based on the solution proposed.

Can FSA confirm that they wish responses to past performance questionnaires to be submitted on 3/1, prior to the rest of the response or is the due date anticipated to be 3/25?

See Amendment 02.

Please clarify that this is a hybrid Firm Fixed Price and IDIQ contract, with the reference clause only pertaining to the Business Process Operations.

See Amendment 02 for updated information on contract structure.

L-2.4.3.1 Pricing Template, bullet a. states: "Provides proposed prices with and without implementation (if applicable) and by operating element and sub-elements identified". Please confirm offers submitting the "Proposal with Implementation" worksheet do not also need to complete the

"Proposal Combining Implementation and O&M" worksheet.

A later amendment will include an updated pricing template.

Are pages allocated for the Traceability Matrix outside of the 40 page limit to Volume 1?

The Traceability Matrix does not count towards the page limitation. Offerors shall include the

Traceability Matrix in Volume I.

Attachments 18 and 19 have differing Periods of Performance indicated.

Can the Government confirm the Period of Performance is accurate as per

C.1.2?

Periods of Performance have been updated. See

Amendment 02.

Will the Government consider revising the completed Attachment 16 due date to March 25, 2019 at 4:30pm, with the proposal submission?

Submission dates have been changed. See

Amendment 02.

Can the Government confirm the pricing for this contract will be evaluated independently from other contracts associated with NextGen?

FSA will evaluate OPS proposals in accordance with the solicitation.

The referenced Pricing Detail Spreadsheet is not included in the list of attachments, as a tab in the Pricing Template (L-2.4.3.1), or in the Price

Proposal requirements table on page 90. Can the Government confirm that this section does not apply and will be removed from the RFP instructions?

No, Offeror shall include the level of effort and material cost for each of the deliverables in the

WBS that roll up into the price proposed in the

Pricing Template. Offeror shall include the Pricing

Detail Spreadsheet in Volume 2. See Amendment

02.

For non-optional task Tier 2 support, help desk for technical issues with the solution or data generated from it, can the Government confirm this does not require separate pricing as the work is part of O&M?

This task's pricing is part of O&M.

Can the Government confirm there is no legacy custom data conversion included in this solicitation?

FSA confirms. FSA may migrate accounts from the

EPS to OPS at a later date, should FSA so determine.

"... may require all new applications and information systems, once created and stabilized, to transition to and leverage common cloud infrastructure services (e.g. through FSA’s Next Generation Data Center

(NGDC)..."

Would the Government please provide an estimated date in which the solution will be required to leverage FSA's NGDC?

There is no target date at this time.

Will the NextGen Optimal Processing solution have any interface to the schools as far as the origination and disbursement functionality? Or is this handled through the digital layer?

The DCC vendor will provide the digital interface for schools for origination and disbursement.

Will the Government serve as the program integrator across all of the

NextGen components?

Solution shall be developed and implemented to ensure easy integration with existing FSA or third-party solutions and NextGen solutions, as necessary to execute required functions.

Can the Government provide the FSA timeline for deploying the common enterprise IT architecture solution?

Should the contractor assume it will be ready for NextGen Optimal

Processing deployment or include middleware pricing for an interim solution?

The Offeror is not constrained by current EITA

For the data migration plan deliverable, can the Government specify what data would be required for the scope of NextGen Optimal Processing?

See Amendment 02 for update requirements on data conversion and migration.

Are vendors eligible to serve in a prime role for more than one NextGen program?

Yes, and the government will review all potential conflicts of interest and corresponding mitigation plans prior to making award decisions.

On Page 5 of the "Special Notices" section, the RFP references "Platform-as-a-Service services support in the cloud." Does the Government have preferred PaaS products at part of the EITA? If so, what products?

FSA does not have a preference but OpenShift is currently being deployed to support FSA mission critical solutions.

The list of deliverables in the "FSA Deliverable Table" suggests a waterfall development approach (other than a reference to a Product Backlog deliverable).

Given the focus on micro-services and DevSecOps, would the Government accept a proposed set of deliverables that reflect a more agile development methodology?

No. FSA believes the LMM deliverables can be used in both waterfall and agile development efforts.

This section states 'A comprehensive set of binding requirements will be defined post award.' Will these binding requirements be subject to a change order? Are the Offerors’ proposed prices to include the implementation of these post award-defined requirements?

In developing the comprehensive set of requirements, requirements will not be documented in change requests; the offeror will have the opportunity to make a request for equitable adjustment based on changes to requirements. Requirement changes after development of set of jointly agreed-upon requirements will be documented in change requests.

Please explain the reference to 'the separately provided Command

Center'. More specifically, who is expected to perform this function in the

Optimal Processing Solution?

The DCC vendor will provide the Command Center.

Please explain if the "performance management mechanisms" outlined here are same as those referenced in Section L-2.4.5 and Attachment 19.

See Amendment 02.

It is unclear on whether the FAFSA process will be considered in scope or out of scope. Please provide requirements defined at a level of detail commensurate with that provided for Servicing.

FAFSA process will be considered in scope. See

Amendment 02 for updated requirements related to eligibility processing.

Please provide more detailed requirements around the other Campus-

Based Title IV programs, such as Federal Work Study (FWS) and the

Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant (FSEOG).

For a broader informational view of FSA’s current servicing environment, Offerors are encouraged to review Attachment “04 – Additional Current State

Technical Constraints,” which provides a representative, though not comprehensive set of technical constraints. A comprehensive set of jointly agreed-upon requirements will be defined post award.

Please provide more detailed requirements around the management of delinquent and defaulted account functions.

For a broader informational view of FSA’s current servicing environment, Offerors are encouraged to review Attachment “04 – Additional Current State

Technical Constraints,” which provides a representative, though not comprehensive set of technical constraints. A comprehensive set of jointly agreed-upon requirements will be defined post award.

Does the scope include all default servicing and collection services

(including those traditionally performed by private collection agencies), or does the 'life of the loan' only include default servicing/DMCS placement

(i.e. only through 'default servicing' in life cycle in Exhibit 1)?

Solution shall execute the full range of “life of the loan” servicing functions, including consolidation origination and default support.

Please explain FSA's expectations in terms of the Offerors' ability to provide substantive information in the Target Milestone Approach, when

Milestones 2, 3 and 4 are listed as "TDB."

See Amendment 02 for updated milestones.

Subsection (d) requires submission of the following: -- Legal proceedings that have reached a final disposition (any court, over the past 5 years) concerning allegations of violating Federal consumer protection laws (e.g., the Consumer Financial Protection Act, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the

Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the Truth in Lending Act, the Privacy Act of 1974, etc.) as pertinent to financial services.

Why is FSA requiring submission of information that is “for informational purposes only and will not be used for evaluation?”

Offeror shall provide the information requested in the attachment for both itself and its subcontractors and teaming partners. In the event that an Offeror is unable to obtain and submit the requested information for one or more cases, the offeror shall note why information could not be obtained and submitted. The FY19 Appropriations

Act requires consideration of offerors' compliance with applicable consumer protection laws, and the offeror shall provide this information as requested.

"With respect to Attachment 17-Consumer Protection Compliance

Template: The existence of certain legal proceedings is confidential by law

(for example, 12 C.F.R. § 1080.14, Confidential treatment of demand material and non-public nature of investigations, makes CFPB investigations non-public, and permits disclosure of the existence of the investigation only to potential witnesses or third parties "to the extent necessary to advance the investigation"). Likewise, legal information repositories are not commonly indexed to permit quick access to information like "claims and relief sought," "judgment and remedies ordered," or "measures taken" in response to litigation, which means that seeking, discerning, and reproducing the requested data will be extraordinarily burdensome to some contractors and subcontractors.

Further, information like "measures taken" voluntarily to ameliorate legal issues is arguably privileged and is unlikely to be disclosed by contractors or subcontractors out of concern that it might be revealed and construed as an "admission" of some kind. In light of the fact that this information is being requested for informational purposes only and will not be used for evaluation, the fact that legal limitations will force submissions to be incomplete, and the fact that it is potentially an extraordinary burden, will the Government remove the requirement to complete Attachment 17?

Where solicitations ask for past litigation information, the request is typically for the case name, court/jurisdiction, filing date or date of dismissal, and status (e.g. dismissed, judgment, open/pending, etc.). If the

Government will not remove Attachment 17, will it revise the Attachment to meet that more common standard (acknowledging the legal confidentiality limitations which remain)?"

Offeror shall provide the information requested in the attachment for both itself and its subcontractors and teaming partners. In the event that an offeror is unable to obtain and submit the requested information for one or more cases, the

Offeror shall note why information could not be obtained and submitted. The FY19 Appropriations

Act requires consideration of Offerors' compliance with applicable consumer protection laws, and the

Offeror shall provide this information as requested.

How many awards does FSA intend to make? FSA intends to make one award for the Optimal

Processing Solution.

Are offerors required to submit proposals for all operating elements, including optional ones?

Yes, Offerors shall submit a proposal that meets the requirements for a all operating elements, including those marked as optional.